Although Rousseau and Locke both describe the social contract as evolution past the state

of Nature, Rousseau describes this evolution as one from a physical state to a moral one. Locke,

however, is never explicit in referencing a ‘social contract’ in the same manner as Rousseau.

Rather, he utilizes the term ‘political society’ to refer to a collective group of people who choose

to live together. Since both Locke and Rousseau are describing a group of individuals

relinquishing liberty for the collective good, for the purposes of this essay, a political society and

social contract will be used interchangeably.

Rousseau claims the society which pre-dated the social contract was based on physical

force, stripping individuals of choice, and thus, any chance for moral agency. For example,

because the decision to “yield to force” is done out of the most basic desire to survive, it cannot

possibly be an act “of will,” (ICCW 1270). The decision to agree to the demands of the strong

occurs out of the desire for self-preservation. This decision cannot be said to be made freely, as

the desire to survive will often instinctively outweigh any moral desires, regardless of the

individual’s will. Without the agency to choose an action, individuals’ choices can no longer

possibly be moral because there is no ethical framework superseding survival from which to

evaluate options; therefore, there is no longer accountability for their choices. Moreover,

because force is a physical act, it has the ability only to affect an individual’s physical actions,

and so does not have the potential to inspire the necessary emotional base make an action moral

(1270). A society ruled by the strongest individual, such as a monarchy, strips all but the most

robust people of the ability to choose to commit their actions. Thus, it has little potential to be

moral. Individuals must have emotional inspiration in order for a society to take moral action,

rather than the society simply providing a threat of physical pain. Finally, because strength may

eventually be matched or exceeded, “the strong is never strong enough to be always the master,

unless [s]he transforms strength into right,” (1270). Morality lends stability to human society by

ensuring the individuals composing the society have an emotional and ethical desire to see the

maintenance of a given status quo or hierarchy. If the structure of society is worth preserving

moralistically, the society will be able to take action without having to drastically alter its

hierarchy each and every time its interests change. This directly challenges the assumptions of

societies predicated on force, which require complete restructuring upon leadership turnovers to

meet the needs of the new strongest individual. This often delays action and creates inefficient

governance. Without acknowledgement of a social contract, society is simply the bending of

individual will to the will of the strongest, stripping the society of its potential morality and

humanity.

Rousseau suggests the transformation from a society founded upon strength to one based

upon egalitarian agreement was a natural progression. For instance, although humans are “born

free,” they grow into “chains,” (1269). When born, humans remain similar to other animals in

that they do not immediately possess the ability to make moral decisions. Infants are influenced

most by the desire to survive, and in infancy, protection, food and shelter are paramount. As the

individual grows into adulthood, survival is easier, and instinct is not the singular influencer in

decision making. This allows the individual to freely choose to enter societal “chains” and forego

absolute freedom. Because this choice is made freely, it is a moral choice. The comparison of

human growth from infant to adult and the growth of society from force-based to morality-based

suggests societal growth equally as inevitable as growing up. Furthermore, because individuals

now have the ability to destroy the “resources” of others, the “primitive condition” of force “can

then subsist no longer,” (1271). Because the physical strength of human beings had significantly

increased, human existence required a transformation to a more moral society. Just as the

pressures of the environment encourage physical adaptations in animals, the human ability to

destroy the resources of others and the adaptive capabilities of their intellect necessitated an

evolution to a society predicated upon freely made choices to prevent the destruction of the

resources keeping people alive. Finally, the subjugation of the weak to the poor required the

relinquishing of liberty to the strong, which is “incompatible with [hu]man’s nature,” as “to

remove all liberty from [their] will is to remove all morality from [their] acts,” (1270). However,

the social contract allowed an individual to unite themselves “with all,” while still following only

their will, “and remain as free as before,” (1272). Rousseau describes the social contract as one

in which each individual contributes an equal voice to the actions of the collective. The

egalitarianism Rousseau’s social contract is founded in allows each individual involved to

maintain their independence, and so, maintain their morality and humanity. Since each person

still retains the ability to decide how society should act, their actions still carry moral

implications. While it is true that each individual sacrifices the liberty to act in opposition of the

will of the majority after the collective has been established, each individual also has the liberty

to choose whether or not to influence the collective, and thus, has more liberty and morality than

was available under a society ruled purely by force. The structural transformation from a society

predicated upon force to one predicated upon free will and moral choice is a natural evolution

and inevitable.

Rousseau claims the result of agreements between individuals is a society predicated

upon the will of the majority, which is, by definition, a moral authority. For example, the

“general will” is “not more than a sum of particular wills” counted; this is so that any

contradictory opinions will eliminate each other (1277). When individuals vote between two or

more choices, some voices will contradict, and when these contradictions are removed, all that

remains are the votes for the most popular choice, or, the majority. Additionally, because each

voice in the society carries equal weight to cancel out another vote for an action, each member of

a society bound by the social contract becomes bound by the decisions of the majority as well.

Therefore, individuals lose some liberty when they enter the social contract, but they also “enjoy

the same rights,” (1279). Each individual has the capacity to freely enter the social contract, and

so, has the ability to make a moral decision concerning which rights they will forego and which

they will retain. By vocalizing a desire to influence the society, individuals gain power to ensure

their morality is followed, but they also fall under the authority of the collective. Finally, the

social contract creates a “convention between the body and each of its members,” and not a

“convention between a superior and an inferior,” ensuring individuals have an equal capacity to

make decisions without fear of retribution (1279). The collective body has authority because

when individuals exercise their voice in decision-making, the choice of the majority then

becomes binding to the individuals who have chosen to join the body. This contrasts with the

“convention between a superior and inferior,” which eliminates the possibility for free or moral

choices from either the individual or the collective. Ultimately, the capacity for the individual to

make a free and moral choice to enter the social contract makes the majority a legitimate

authority, worthy of the right to rule over individuals. Under the social contract, individuals

become beholden to the will of the majority; however, this will is moral because individuals

freely choose to subjugate themselves to it.

Conversely, Locke states that the most natural human state is one of equity because the

law of Nature ensures individuals will not be subjugated to the will of the strong. Locke states

that all humans are “the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker,” and so

“there cannot be supposed any such subordination” of individuals (1011). Unlike Rousseau,

Locke claims that individuals have the capacity to make free decisions, even under threat of

force, because the individual was gifted with the capacity for decision making from birth. This

directly challenges Rousseau’s growth imagery, and suggests that all choices made by

individuals have moral implications since all choices are freely made. Additionally, Locke

claims that each individual in the state of Nature has equal capacity to punish individuals who

would do them harm, as “everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that law” of Nature

(1012). The law of Nature states that individuals do not have the right to harm another in body or

property. Those who would harm another’s body or property would be immediately and

reciprocally punished in a state of Nature, which suggests the individual has the capacity to

encourage moral change through physical action, again, directly contradicting Rousseau’s claim

that physical force may not encourage free choice. Locke’s suggestion implies that individuals

may be able to take physical punishment into account when making decisions in the future,

allowing punishment from an equal to serve as deterrence for a future action. Although Locke

does claim that individuals in a society, able to better prevent bias, will be better able to execute

punishment for transgressions against the law of Nature, the potential for bias does not restrict

the individual’s capacity for carrying out punishment on an individual level. Because each

person has equal capacity for enforcing the law of Nature, there is no singular person strong

enough to overcome and oppress the weak, therefore all choices are made freely by the

individual.

Although Locke claims the state of Nature was egalitarian, he still also suggests the

transformation from a state of Nature to a political society was natural one. For example, in a

state of Nature, individuals are “constantly exposed to the invasion of others,” and therefore are

willing to “join in society with others who are already united,” (1032). Because there exists

“others who are already united,” the decision to establish a collective society is a trend created

specifically for the purpose of survival. Individuals choose to adapt to their environment in order

to gain better security. It is important to note that, although the joining of a society to ensure

survival and the maintenance of property is still a natural evolution, it directly contrasts with

Rousseau’s description of evolution from the physical to the moral. Instead, Locke describes an

evolution from unsafe to secure, thus allowing those entering the society to focus on problems

other than security. Since security is the foremost priority for individuals, it is inevitable that

individuals will seek to maximize safety. Moreover, the potential for transgressors of the law of

Nature encourage individuals to join communities, as “were it not for the corruption” of those

who would violate the law of Nature by harming another, “there would be no need of any other”

society than the most general society of human beings (1033). Joining a collective society is

done purely for its benefits to survival. Because Locke prioritizes survival above egalitarianism,

it is a normal progression for individuals to desire to become more physically secure, instead of

simply equal to their peers. In the case of monarchy, though,, “whenever [an individual’s]

property is invaded” the individual does not have the capacity to punish the transgressor of the

law of Nature (1029). Although a monarchy is substantially different from Locke’s described

state of Nature, as one individual now has unequal power over others, the political society

described by Locke still retains the ability to make the individual more secure in body and

property than in a monarchy, suggesting the political society would be an evolutionary step

above both the state of nature and a monarchy. The choice to enter a political society was one

that ensured the security of the individual, and so, is a natural choice for individuals to make.

Locke claims the transformation from a state of Nature to a political society is the result

of reason, rather than the desire for a moral authority. For example, although individuals have

the capacity to punish those who wrong them, they may also be biased in their punishment, and

so reason dictates individuals appeal to an impartial entity to ensure punishment is done

reasonably (1014). Because each act of punishment must be exactly reciprocal to the

transgression committed, in order to not also be a breach of the law of Nature, potential biases

could cause individual to over-punish. The existence of a separate entity to determine

punishment ensures individuals do not create an endless cycle of transgressions. Unlike

Rousseau’s description of the social contract, individuals who enter Locke’s described political

society do not gain social standing or humanity. Instead, these individuals gain access to a

political body that separates their decisions from emotion, ensuring decisions are founded upon

logic. Furthermore, individuals in a state of Nature often lack “power to back and support the

sentence,” making a collective agreement to punish those who would violate the law of Nature

together more reasonable (1033). Although individuals in a state of Nature are equal in their

capacity to punish other individuals, they may lack the strength to punish groups or to deter those

exceptionally determined to cause harm. Joining a political society is, therefore, a rational

solution to a disturbing problem. Locke’s described state of Nature is one in which individuals

have unrestricted freedom to make moral choices; the decision to forego some of that free will

and decision making capacity for safety is done in the name of logic and reason, directly

contrasting Rousseau’s claims that individuals outside of a social contract are able to make

decisions solely on logic and instinct but must evolve to gain the capacity to make free and moral

decisions. For Locke, political society has authority over individuals because it is sensible for it

to do so, not because the authority of the majority is moral.

Rousseau and Locke both describe the social contract as an inevitable evolution of

society above the state of nature; however, Rousseau describes society as evolving to become

more moral, whereas Locke claims society evolves to due to the influences of reason. Rousseau

emphasizes the role of the emotional and abstract as factors which allow individuals to grow out

of following pure instincts, to being able to make free and moral decisions. Contrastingly, Locke

does the opposite – describing a society that allowed free and moral decisions, but stating that

physical factors, such as the desire to preserve life and property, encouraged the joining of a

political society. Although Rousseau claimed that in a society outside the social contract,

individual strength would order society through force, Locke claimed individuals were born with

equal capacity to fight against those who would otherwise harm them. Ultimately, the two

seemingly irreconcilable descriptions suggest that reason and morality may not be intertwined,

and that reason will always emphasize the prioritization of the physical over the abstract.

Therefore, reason, under their analysis, marginalizes emotion and ethics. This causes the method

for structuring knowledge to reject an important aspect of knowing: human morality.